memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Unused production material
Deleted and Unreferenced Material :From Memory Alpha:Category suggestions: Category:Deleted material for articles such as Martin Madden which have been "converted" from in-universe to production-POV articles. Also, something like Category:Unreferenced material for pages like United States of Africa, assuming that page remains in its current form. --From Andoria with Love 08:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Hey, guys, down here! Come on, let's show some support for this! Let's go, get with the program! Arriba! Arriba! Ándale! Ándale! Yip yip! Yee-haw!!! --From Andoria with Love 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) :You've been watching too much Speedy Gonzales :P Support. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) ::Both created. They need to be populated now. -- Sulfur 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Why unreferenced? Why is this "unreferenced", when this info is from valid reference sources/works. Wouldn't something like "Reference material" be a better name? What comes to mind now, when I see the category title is that these pages don't fit in and need attention or are uncited somehow or something. Or is it just me, maybe it's just me. I'm not a native English speaker. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:52, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :It's "unreferenced" because the subjects of articles in this category were not "referenced" in canon, but only in scripts, reference materials, or whatever. Information from deleted scenes is in Category:Deleted material. 31dot (talk) 23:16, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::The category name could be changed to "Supplementary material", as this material only comes from supplementary reference sources. - 18:31, June 16, 2013 (UTC) Something like that would have a better ring to it. --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:21, June 16, 2013 (UTC) :::I support a name change, but "Supplementary material" does not seem to totally fit what is meant either. I lean more toward something like "Unutilized material"...--Sennim (talk) 05:39, July 4, 2013 (UTC) Or "Unused material"? --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:25, July 4, 2013 (UTC) :::Would also work for me:)--Sennim (talk) 13:19, July 4, 2013 (UTC) ::"Unutilized/Unused" has a similar problem to "unreferenced", as it sounds like "unutilized material" should be a maintenance category for unused images and orphaned pages. "Production material" might be a better name in that case, as it at least lines up with Category:Memory Alpha images (production material), but that category would then most likely have to "absorb" a few other categories and pages in Category:Production. Of course, we could create that super category and then just have a cut material(?) category inside it. Just thinking on the page now. - 23:20, July 4, 2013 (UTC) :::That also sounds like an option to me (it reminds me of a "production" category discussion we had a while back with Cid, I recall making a production cat-tree suggestion) In this particular case a subcat "Unused production material" (or "Unutilized" to differentiate between the maintenance cats) sounds the more viable option to me as "cut (production) material" suggests material that was produced but edited out in post-production (the "Deleted material" cat 31dot refers to above), whereas I think that my suggestion would also cover material that was considered but not taken to the next "production/filming" level. An alternative that just popped up in my mind might be "Considered production material"...Also just musing...--Sennim (talk) 09:13, July 5, 2013 (UTC) Another name candidate would be Pre-production material. Since this covers information and material that was produced in the pre-production stage as props or lines of script, but was not used during filming or post-production. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:18, July 5, 2013 (UTC) ::::Another idea is to become a little more verbose if two words can't convey the whole intended meaning. ;) Category:Unused material (filmed but cut), Category:Unused material (scripted but unfilmed), Category:Unused material (unused props), etc. This will work best, of course, in combination with an umbrella category Category:Unused material which has these as sub-categories. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:39, July 5, 2013 (UTC) :::I like Cid's refinement, its has the advantage of not having to differentiate between post- and pre-production. Refinements I'd like to suggest to his proposal, "Unused production material" instead "Unused material" to differentiate from maintenance cats and "conceptualized but unfilmed" instead of "scripted but unfilmed" as this covers both script elements and concept production art that were not followed through, also covering something like the recently discussed D4 class (concept), which was a CGI model that was built, but not rendered into footage, and therefore not qualifying as "cut material"...--Sennim (talk) 10:14, July 8, 2013 (UTC) ::::Sounds reasonable. If we go that route, I suggest to make the new categories sub-categories of this one first, and only rename this category (to include "production") later, if most member pages have already been moved to one of the subs. That way we'll avoid some unnecessary edits. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:02, July 8, 2013 (UTC) I like just the one "Unused production material" category without subcategories. I don't see the need to overly complicate this. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:13, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :::If we go that route, then, in my mind, it would make sense to use "Unused production material" as a supercat, to accommodate the already existing category "Deleted material" (which qualifies as "unused" material after all), and a new one for everything else, something like "conceptualized but unfilmed material" or "unfilmed concept material". Any possible ambiguous left-overs could then be parked as a loose entry under the supercat...--Sennim (talk) 11:01, July 9, 2013 (UTC) Hows about just renaming to Unfilmed material? --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:13, July 9, 2013 (UTC) :::That has a nice uncomplicated ring about it:)...Sennim (talk) 15:28, July 9, 2013 (UTC) Redux It's been half a year now. Any chance this might be renamed to "Unfilmed material" now? --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:08, December 28, 2013 (UTC) :We're not sure if it's unfilmed though. For all we know, these things may have been filmed but cut, but not included in deleted scenes (as they might've been simply deleted lines, altered edits, altered takes, etc). I am against "unfilmed material". -- sulfur (talk) 15:17, December 28, 2013 (UTC) Perhaps the simplest way would be to merge everything in this category with Category:Deleted material since what difference does it make at what point of production something is abandoned. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:21, December 28, 2013 (UTC) ::The first link to an "unreferenced material article" on this talk page goes to United States of Africa - which was never deleted, because it apparently never was used in the first place. If we now need to merge categories (which, as I understand, hasn't been the topic of discussion yet), the title of the combined category should be something that works for all of its members, so it couldn't be "Deleted material". "Abandoned" might work, although I'd prefer to see that as "Abandoned concepts" rather than "abandoned material" (because, using the same example again, a fictitious state is a concept rather than a material). That said, I'm not completely convinced we really need to merge. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 20:40, December 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Was there a problem with the suggested "Production material" -> "Unused production material" -> Deleted material tree, or did we just keep thinking beyond that one? I would think if that was used the need for further breakdowns would either become readily apparent, and hopefully more easily nameable, or simply be unnecessary. - 02:17, January 13, 2014 (UTC) :::Last call for comments. - 18:00, January 19, 2014 (UTC) So everything here is going to "Unused production material" sounds okay, better than this anyways. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:04, January 19, 2014 (UTC)